THE EFFECT OF A HIGH SCHOOL SPEECH COURSE ON PUBLIC SPEAKING ANXIETY FOR STUDENTS IN A COLLEGE-LEVEL PUBLIC SPEAKING CLASS

by Karen Hill Johnson

Dissertation

Submitted to the Faculty of Trevecca Nazarene University School of Education in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Education in Leadership and Professional Practice

May 2012

UMI Number: 3519055

All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent on the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI 3519055 Copyright 2012 by ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346

 2012 Karen Hill Johnson All Rights Reserved

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to thank Jesus Christ, my Lord and savior, for without His unconditional love, mercy, and forgiveness, the completion of this degree would not be possible. Secondly, to my adviser, Ruth T. Kinnersley, Ed.D., I am forever grateful for her consistent patience, compassion, understanding, and direction as this publication would not be a reality without her. Additionally, I wish to thank my colleagues: Dr. Stephanie Kelly, Dr. Dave Gesler, Dr. Jace Jux, Dr. Billy Wooten, Dr. Bob Glenn, Professor Tori Forncrook, Dr. Lena Welch, Professor Stacy Freed, and Dr. Judi Truitt, who, without their help, the study would not have been possible. Next, I am forever grateful to my mentor, teacher, and friend, Dr. Crystal Rae Coel Coleman for the many years of tough love and motivation, among many other things. I owe much gratitude to her as I would not have entered the halls of higher learning if it were not for her honesty, support, leadership, and guidance. Lastly, this degree would not have been obtained without the emotional and psychological support from my husband, Carl D. Johnson.

ii

DEDICATION This work is dedicated to the students who inspired me to help them overcome their fear of Public Speaking, in hopes that future research will be conducted to ultimately include public speaking into the high school curricula.

iii

ABSTRACT by Karen Hill Johnson, Ed.D. Trevecca Nazarene University August 2012 Major Area: Leadership and Professional Practice Number of Words: 91

Literature suggested public speaking is Americans most feared activity. Additionally, the public speaking curriculum was removed from the K-12 school system after 2001. This study aimed to examine the effect of previous public speaking instruction, public speaking extra-curricular activity, gender, and self-esteem on public speaking anxiety for students in a college-level public speaking course. Results indicated students with prior instruction or public speaking extra-curricular experience will have lower levels of public speaking anxiety. No significant difference was found with regard to gender and selfesteem as moderators on previous public speaking instruction.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I. Page

INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................1 Statement of the Problem .........................................................................................2 Background ..............................................................................................................3 Research Questions ..................................................................................................5 Description of Terms ...............................................................................................6 Significance of the Study .........................................................................................6 Process to Accomplish .............................................................................................7

II.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .........................................................................8 Introduction ..............................................................................................................8 History of Rhetoric ..................................................................................................9 History of Public Speaking in America .................................................................11 History of Communication Research in America ..................................................12 History of The Speech Curriculum in High School ...............................................13 Communication Apprehension ..............................................................................16 Public Speaking Anxiety........................................................................................17 National Standards .................................................................................................23 State Standards .......................................................................................................29 Benefit of a Speech Course ....................................................................................33 Conclusion .............................................................................................................37 v

Chapter ............................................................................................................... Page III. METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................38 Introduction ............................................................................................................38 Research Design.....................................................................................................39 Participants .............................................................................................................40 Data Collection .....................................................................................................41 Analytical Methods ................................................................................................42 IV. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................43 Introduction ............................................................................................................43 Findings..................................................................................................................45 Summary of the Findings .......................................................................................49 Limitations.49 Implications and Recommendations ......................................................................50 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................54 APPENDICES A. Appendix A Survey...........................................................................................69 B. Appendix B IRB Approvals ..............................................................................72

vi

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. 2. 3. 4. Page Table 1 Public speaking instruction and public speaking anxiety.46 Table 2 Extracurricular public speaking experience and public speaking anxiety 46 Table 3 Public speaking instruction and self esteem .............................................48 Table 4 Gender and public speaking anxiety.49

vii

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The need for public speaking extends beyond the classroom and confidence gained through public speaking in class transfers to other situations (Boyce, AlberMorgan & Riley, 2007, p.142). Additionally, organizations regard communication skills among the most important when seeking potential employees. (Hefferin, 1997) Furthermore, employers require employees to be skilled in oral communications (Secretarys Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills, 1991). Despite the importance of communication skills, well-respected companies have communicated the concern that many organizational leaders lack effective communication skills (Quintanilla & Mallard, 2008). Ironically, in the K-12 Language Arts curriculum, speaking and listening receive little emphasis. Although the importance of these skills is widely recognized, the integration of these skills into the curriculum is not happening, at least not consistently (Hanson, 2008, p.75). As cited in Hanson, (2008), Venhaus noted, no matter what career path students choose, they will need to be able to communicate effectively (Hanson, 2008, p.76). Students are more likely to be proficient in this area that will benefit them in college and into adulthood when they have experience and practice beginning in elementary school (Boyce et al, 2007).

Statement of the Problem The problem addressed in this study was how the lack of a basic communication skills course in secondary education negatively affected students entering a college introductory communication course. For those students pursuing higher education their first instruction in effective communication skills often occurs in the basic communication course they take in college. Even though speaking is regarded as one of the most important components of the language arts standard, it is many times abandoned in school curricula. (Simonds, 2002) According to Shafer (2009), most middle and high school students lack appropriate speaking skills even though they are presenting information more frequently in todays classroom. Moreover, the author stated, students lack support from their teacher and peers; thus, public speaking is often cited as one of the top ten fears of individuals. According to Viadero (2009), educators believe communication skills are vital to student success, although schools are not placing emphasis on communication as a content area integrated into the curriculum. Ironically, in the K-12 Language Arts curriculum, speaking and listening receive little emphasis. Although the importance of these skills is widely recognized, the integration of these skills into the curriculum is not happening, at least not consistently (p.75). Even though speaking is thought to be a vital component of language arts, there is a tendency to overlook it in the school curriculum (Simonds, 2002).

Background Rhetoric, defined as the art or discipline that deals with the use of discourse, either spoken or written, to inform or persuade or motivate an audience (Corbett, 1990, p.3) dates back to the fifth century, B.C. when Corax consulted individuals who were attempting to reclaim confiscated property after warfare (Lamb, 1998, p. 1). This new art was welcomed by the Athenians as it was a logical means to acquire information and truth in public forums. While early rhetoricians proposed the use of logic and ethics as a way to convince people to see the truth, some later sophists began to damage rhetoric (Lamb, 1998). Those corrupting the art were Athenian teachers who had profound influence in educating people with regard to literature, science, philosophy, citizenship, and oration (p.1). Rhetoric became a much sought after, highly admired skill that proved to be profitable. Several corrupt sophists began to create a reputation based on their students rhetorical skills, and quality gave way to recognition. Truth became expendable while winning became indispensable and when practitioners without principles chose self-important, vacant bluster, the reputation of the discipline quickly declined and negative connotations replaced the once well-respected discipline (1998). Lamb (1998) illustrated the profound impact Aristotle had on the current state of rhetoric as todays rhetorical theories are still based on the three cannons of rhetoric: discovery of arguments, arrangement of materials, and considerations of style (p.1). Lamb further stated rhetoric is important because it is an art of speaking effectively. Additionally, the principles of rhetoric transfer to situations in every day interactions, allowing persons to present their thoughts with ethic and logic. As cited in Boyce et al.

(2007), The National Council of Teachers of English and the International Reading Association (1996) included oral communication skills as important components of the Standards for the English Language. Witkin, Lovern, & Lundsteen (1996) conducted a survey of curricula in 50 states and found a considerable discrepancy between what is advocated by state departments of education and what actually happens in the classroom (p. 52) Hall, Morreale, & Gaudino (1999) posited that local policy makers should be responsible for the inclusion of speech communication curricula in the K-12 environment. According to Hall et al. (1999), it is the responsibility of the public education system to guarantee that students accomplish communication competence; thus, excellent curriculum and best practices regarding teaching techniques must be developed. Book and Pappas (1981) surveyed 13 states in the country to assess the requirement of a speech course at the secondary level. Schools responded directly to the survey and 76% of schools responded while only 32% indicated the course was a requirement for all students. In 1990, the National Communication Association conducted a follow-up survey and found eight states did not include any requirement for oral communication, while 48 states had some requirement for oral communication. Additionally, twenty-six states required speech or oral communication as part of an incorporated language arts curriculum while 15 states recommended (p.3) communication as a component of the integrated language arts curriculum (Chesebro & Gaudino 1991). By 1996, the Council of Chief State School Officers stated that if oral communications be a part of a schools curriculum, it would be included in the English language arts curriculum (1996). In general, as the above mentioned surveys suggest,

communication education in the K-12 environment has been disjointed and incomplete, as the courses may be offered as an elective but are not required (Hall et al., 1999). A study conducted by Hall et al. (1999) found that of states that responded to the survey, 65% of high schools required speech or oral communication as part of an integrated language arts curriculum, while only two states indicated a communication course was required and offered as its own course, and finally two percent indicated no requirement of a communication course. Research Questions Numerous researchers (Ayres, 1996; Behnke & Sawyer, 1999; Bodie, 2010; Cunningham, Lefkoen & Sechrest, 2006; Friedrich, Goss, Cunconan & Lane, 1997; Menzel & Carrell, 1994; McCroskey, 1997; and Nelson & Pearson, 2005) have suggested that students who experience low levels of public speaking anxiety have had more instruction and exposure to public speaking situations. Thus, four questions drove this research: 1. Did students who had a course in public speaking during high school differ in levels of public speaking anxiety from those without high school public speaking instruction? 2. Did students who had extra-curricular experience in public speaking during high school differ in levels of public speaking anxiety from those who did not have extra-curricular public speaking experience? 3. Did a students self-esteem moderate the effect of a previous high school speech course on public speaking anxiety?

4. Did a students gender moderate the effect of a previous high school speech course on public speaking anxiety? Description of Terms Rhetoric. The art or discipline that deals with the use of discourse, either spoken or written, to inform or persuade or motivate an audience Public Speaking. An instrument whereby thought may be communicated through the spoken word by one person to a group Communication Apprehension. The fear or anxiety associated with either real or anticipated communication with another person or persons Public Speaking Anxiety. A specific subtype of communication-based anxiety whereby individuals experience physiological arousal, negative self-focused cognitions, and/or behavioral concomitants in response to an expected or actual presentation Significance of the Study Most people experience some level of public speaking anxiety when presented with the task of verbally delivering information. For those experiencing high levels of public speaking anxiety, it can be debilitating not only personally, but professionally. Everyone at some point in their life is asked to stand and deliver information, but for those who fear public speaking, this chore seems daunting. Due to the paucity of research on public speaking anxiety at the collegiate level with regard to gender and self-esteem, this study contributed to the field of communication and public speaking anxiety, as it was the first of its kind. The results of this study could possibly open the door to reintroduce the speech course into the high school curriculum. This would benefit students

by providing them with the basic public speaking skills necessary to be successful in the personal, professional, and academic areas of their lives. Students entering the public speaking or basic communication course in higher education could gain more from the course if they had a foundation of communication skill and knowledge on which to build. The results of the study conducted at various colleges and universities in the states of Kentucky and Tennessee should encourage other communication scholars and researchers alike to play an active role in re-introducing the speech course in the high school curriculum. Process to Accomplish The researcher surveyed 351 volunteer students enrolled in an introduction to public speaking course at the college level. Institutions included two four-year public universities, two four-year private universities, and one two-year community college in the states of Kentucky and Tennessee. Data were collected from the Personal Report of Public Speaking Anxiety (See Appendix A). The survey also included items that asked the students age, gender, whether or not the student had a speech course in high school or participated in an extra-curricular speech and debate organization, and included Rosenbergs Self Esteem Scale. Using these identifiers, the researcher divided the population into two groups: students who had a speech course in high school and students who did not have a speech course in high school. These two groups were then compared on the effect of a previous speech course in high school with regard to public speaking anxiety. The data were examined to determine if gender, or self-esteem moderated the effect of a speech course on public speaking anxiety.

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction Many who fear standing in front of an audience and presenting a speech have experienced public speaking anxiety. This can be crippling to ones success in personal or professional life. More and more often, people are called upon to stand and deliver information to inform, persuade or entertain but for those who experience moderate to high levels of public speaking anxiety, this task can seem impossible. Most students have their first encounter with public speaking instruction at the college level, as many higher education institutions require the course to fulfill a general education requirement. Some students are exposed to public speaking instruction in high school through the integration of communication concepts in the English Language Arts curriculum. Public speaking in this context is taught by an English or Language Arts teacher who many times has little or no training in teaching public speaking. Fewer students experience public speaking instruction though a speech course or speech and debate team during their high school tenure. This lack of instruction can be detrimental to the professional success of an individual given that organizations clearly seek employers who possess competent oral communication skills. This review of literature first outlines the history of rhetoric, followed by the history of public speaking in America. Next, the history of public speaking research in America is reviewed, along with the history of speech curriculum in high school. Definitions of communication apprehension and public speaking anxiety, 8

along with related research, are reviewed next, followed by information related to national standards, and Kentucky and Tennessee state standards, before finally reviewing the research related to the benefit of a speech course. 1: Did students who had a course in public speaking during high school differ in levels of public speaking anxiety from those without high school public speaking instruction? 2: Did students who had extra-curricular experience in public speaking during high school differ in levels of public speaking anxiety from those who did not have extra-curricular public speaking experience? 3: Did a students self-esteem moderate the effect of a previous high school speech course on public speaking anxiety? 4: Did a students gender moderate the effect of a previous high school speech course on public speaking anxiety? History of Rhetoric Rhetoric dates to the fifth century when Corax assisted those attempting to reclaim post-war sequestered property (Lamb, 1998). Corbett defined rhetoric as the art or discipline that deals with the use of discourse, either spoken or written, to inform or persuade or motivate an audience (1990, p.3). This new art was a valuable asset to the Athenians to assist in acquiring information and truth. Aristotle is regarded as one of the leaders in impacting the current state of rhetoric as the theories taught in the communication courses are based on his three canons of rhetoric (Lamb 1998). Cicero (1876) voiced the importance of oral communication and its impact on the development of a society:

It is by this one gift that we are most distinguished from brute animals, that we converse together, and can express our thoughts by speech. I consider that by the judgment and wisdom of the perfect orator, not only his own honor, but that of many other individuals, and the welfare of the whole state, are principally upheld (p. 14). Rhetoric has also played a role in the development of the individual as well as the culture of the United States (Oliver, 1965). Public Speaking has allowed individuals the opportunity to develop skills to become leaders and advance within a community. One of the most notable speakers, Henry Ward Beecher, credited his passion and ability to his speech class in which for the first time he encountered a kind of teaching that was less concerned with the input of information into his mind than with the outflow of influence from his whole personality (Oliver, p. 759). The body of evidence that demonstrates the importance of communication skills is consistently increasing in size. According to Becker & Eckdom (1980), the critical specific technical skills have taken a back seat to communication skills. In addition, Emanuel (2005) reported personnel managers stated the most desired skill in the workplace is oral communication. Harrell & Harrell (1984) stated that good communication skills were of utmost importance for one to have a successful career. Family communication has been described as the most important factor that determines our relationships (Satir, 1988). Emanuel (2005) reported leaders in the field of engineering ranked communication skills as more important than technical skills. In addition, Darling and Dannels (2003) found that among practicing engineers, competent communication skills were more important than the actual skill of engineering in their daily jobs.

10

History of Public Speaking in America Following World War II, the majority of the evaluation of speech curricula in high schools within the United States has been conducted at the state level and has focused on three areas of speech: courses offered for credit, outside-of-class speech activities, and the training of speech teachers (Brooks, 1969). According to Brooks, 90% of high schools offered a speech course for credit. Brooks also found that the larger the student population, the more likely the school was to offer a speech course for credit, but also noted an inconsistency in the standards for the course. Available studies indicate the evidence of a wide range (0 to 60 percent) among the states in the percentage of high schools requiring speech for graduation (Brooks, p.278). According to Brooks, educators supported speech as a curricular requirement; however, obstacles to requiring speech included inconsistency in course title and lack of proper teacher training with regard to the speech course. Brooks found that in Nebraska, 44% of teachers teaching a speech course at the high school level had less than six hours of speech training. In Washington, 36 of 239 teachers had no speech training at all. Furthermore, Robinson (1952) reported that in 1952, only 11 states required teachers to hold specific certification to teach speech at the secondary level. Public Speaking has been an integral part of American history. Public Speaking has allowed for the development of leaders, and the growth of ideas. Furthermore, the art of public address has allowed for the expansion of institutions which distinguish our nation (Oliver, 1965). Forensic leagues, after school programs and special occasions have empowered the growth of the leader throughout our nations history. According to Oliver, the earliest European immigrants were the first to have Town Meetings in which

11

community problems were resolved through debate and dialogue. The author further noted, without eloquent and effective speech, this nation would never have been formed. Then through discussion and debate, our basic institutions were devised and our guiding national policies were developed. This is how it was-through the democracy of free speech, skillfully used (p. 759). Oliver (1965) further noted that no other country has matched the United States in platform eloquence as we have a need for free and skilled public speaking in order to develop and deepen our self-governing democracy as it is even more important than the free ballot box as a bastion for personal and public liberties (p. 761). Villarreal (1938) commented that public speaking is a medium in which one may communicate thoughts through a verbal means to a group, and therefore the oral communications course allows students to expand their talents. Thus, public speaking is a purposive activity, and its aim is always to influence the behavior of the audience (p. 591). History of Communication Research in America According to Friedrich (2002), the roots of the communication discipline can be traced back to the study of rhetoric, and has been defined by the response to student needs for assistance in mastering the skills of practical discourse (p. 372). Craig (1989) stated that the fundamental purpose of communication is to develop the art of speaking as a practicality. Early research, with respect to the national association within the field of communication, focused on certification requirements for secondary school teachers, evaluation of the training of high school speech teachers, and the evaluation of high

12

school debate programs (Friedrich). Common communication research has included refining communication as an applicable art while utilizing various methods of instruction. Over time, scholars have researched topics such as power in the classroom, teacher immediacy, teacher and student perception, instructional behaviors, teacher and student feedback and instructional communication (Friedrich, 2002). History of Speech Curriculum in High School According to Buys, Carlson, Compton & Frank (1968), speech education became a component of the American high school curriculum in the 1800s. The curriculum was adapted from that of colleges and universities and the purpose was to prepare individuals for leadership positions to be speakers of truth, announcers of certainty, explainers of causality and possessors of power (Buys et al., p.296). Four revolutions have affected the classical model of speech education: the Darwinian, the Freudian, the Einsteinian and the Economic revolutions (Buys et al., 1968). The Darwinian revolution changed humans relationship to the natural world of created things thus bringing about new views of the creation and existence of man. The Freudian revolution turned mans attention to the nature and functioning of the human emotional-neurological-somatic system (Buys et al., p. 298). Communication has become such an integral part of the lives of humans that one psychological therapeutic method is completely oriented around communication. The Einsteinian revolution presented humans with the notion of, What is the meaning of meaning (Buys et al., 1968, p.298). Finally, the Economic revolution influenced the speech curriculum in that students would grow into jobs in which people work with people as opposed to things.

13

Speech Across the Curriculum refers to the implementation of communication instruction in disciplines other than communication-typically in the form of a university program or initiative (Dannels & Housley Gaffney, 2009, p. 125) and was first formally introduced in 1974 at Centre College in Iowa. However, in 1937 a high school speech teacher in Kansas City Missouri wanted to assess the public speaking skill of her students after teaching the lessons of the day. She entered the other classes, observed the students giving oral reports in other subjects, and collaborated with teachers of other subjects, thus creating speech across the curriculum (Dieckhoff, 1937). Snyder (1999) noted, Oral Communications are justified as a vital part of a secondary school curriculum because they genuinely contribute to the overall educational development of individual students (p. 2). Snyder further asserted unless a student has specific training in communication, it is not likely that a person can become a refined member of society. In a national survey, 55% of respondents reported requiring a public speaking course in high school, whereas 30% responded requiring a hybrid communication course (Morreale & Backlund, 2002). Due to the concern of job availability and appropriate preparation and instruction for undergraduate speech communication majors, Nyquist (1982) was prompted to conduct a study that assessed the status of speech in Washington secondary schools. The researcher compared the findings of a 1966 study to monitor expansion or decline of speech programs. Results showed 89% of the respondents identified the existence of a speech communication course within their school curriculum, a 2.5% growth rate from the 1966 study. When respondents were asked to report the type of communication class offered, 69.5% responded a hybrid course was offered, consisting of public speaking,

14

interpersonal communication, and fundamentals. Seventy-six percent of the respondents indicated that a basic course in speech communication was required for high school graduation, while nine percent indicated that a speech course of any kind would meet graduation requirements. Lastly, Nyquist found of the teachers teaching the speech course, only 27% majored in speech communication. Communication scholars at The National Communication Association found that the states that certify teachers to teach speech has decreased significantly since 1998. A certificate to teach speech no longer exists in most states; rather, it is included in the certification to teach English. This has resulted in the decline of the number of teacher preparation institutions (National Communication Association, 2007). In the state of Illinois in 1990, six major universities offered speech teaching majors while in 2007, only one university was offering the major. Jennings, Long, Nollinger & Sank (2006) found similar results in all but one state. Furthermore, while some research suggested a greater need for students to obtain the skill of effective communication, other research suggested the downfall of proper communication instruction and teacher preparation. In addition, the number of teachers with coursework in oral communication has also been declining (National Communication Association). In the state of New York in 1969, only 22% of high schools required a course in speech; however, most often the course was offered for one credit hour and in 75 percent of high schools surveyed, the course replaced one term of English (Ogilvie, 1969, p. 41). In 1969 in New York, the speech course developed most rapidly in the larger schools as many schools were faced with hiring teachers to teach a speech course

15

who were not qualified to teach the course (Ogilvie). The situation has not improved over time. According to Jennings (2010): Most P-8 teachers who complete early childhood education or elementary programs do not take communication courses beyond those required for general education. In an informal survey at a recent meeting of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, less than 50% of the nationally-certified attendees, commonly identified as the top P-12 teachers in America, completed a single college communication course (p.149-150). Based on their findings, Morreale and Pearson (2008) suggested those most experienced in the field should be the ones teaching the course. A few states have maintained the speech course separate from the Language Arts curriculum including California, Florida, Texas and Oklahoma. In Texas, the one-semester speech course, entitled Communication Applications was integrated into the curriculum of other courses in 1997 (Hanson, 2008). Communication Apprehension Even Cicero (1942) admitted: I turn pale at the onset of a speech and quake in every limb and in my soul (p. xxvi). Bodie (2010) dated the introduction of public speaking anxiety from the 1930s and identified it as, stage fright in which scholars have studied public speaking anxiety under various labels such as speech fear, social speech fright, speech anxiety, audience anxiety, and performance anxiety, often used interchangeably and defined in various ways (p. 71); however, the term can be broadly categorized as a type of social anxiety in which a threat of negative assessment from listeners may occur.

16

Although the study of stage fright can be dated to the 1930s, the person most noted for prolific research of communication apprehension is McCroskey (1970). The members of the Speech Association of America asked McCroskey and other scholars to identify the needs within the field of communication with regard to evaluation and assessment (1970). This study resulted in McCroskeys identification of the term communication apprehension (p.270). McCroskey defined communication apprehension as the fear or anxiety associated with either real or anticipated communication with another person or persons (1970, p. 269). Ultimately, communication apprehension refers to how someone feels about communication, not how they communicate (McCroskey, 1983). Miller and Nadler (2009) reported that students who experience high levels of communication apprehension are more susceptible to withdrawn social interaction, prejudice, and lower self-esteem. In college, students who experience low levels of communication apprehension are more likely to experience success in personal and professional life (Miller & Nadler, 2009). Furthermore, the authors articulated that there was a correlation between higher levels of communication apprehension and lower GPAs, higher dropout rate, and the lack of coping skills to transition from childhood to adulthood. Lastly, their findings suggested that college student leaders have low levels of communication apprehension, specifically related to public speaking. Public Speaking Anxiety Public speaking anxiety is considered a sub component of communication anxiety. Bodie (2010) defined public speaking anxiety whereby individuals experience physiological arousal, negative self-focused cognitions, or behavioral concomitants in

17

response to an expected or actual presentation (p. 70-71). Public Speaking Anxiety (PSA) can result in poor preparation or performances, can have a lasting impact and can cause one to avoid speaking situations. Clevenger (1984) concluded that the combination of public speaking expectations and the presence of an audience provide the situationspecific classifications of PSA and distinguish it from other socially based anxieties The author further noted that PSA is more novel, formal, rule-based, and oftentimes selffocused (p.71). This research focused on two broad types of PSA: trait-based and state-based. Spielbergers (1966) illustration between the two is the most widely accepted in the area of PSA research. Trait-based PSA is the overall propensity to have anxiety occur in various environments throughout time, while state-based PSA generally refers to the anxiety one feels in one specific environment at one specific time. Foundational research conducted by Henrikson (1943) and Knower (1938) proposed that trait PSA was an effect of a lack in public speaking skill. Phillips (1991) concluded that typically one acquires speaking skills through ones own social experiences; therefore, these experiences have become habits upon entering the college public speaking classroom. However, in most recent research, (Beatty, McCroskey, & Heisel, 1998; Beatty, McCroskey, & Valencic, 2001) traits are considered genetic predispositions. Bodie (2010) stated that again and again, studies reveal that PSA is realistically identified as a characteristic in which one feels overall anxiety specifically regarding public speaking. Behnke and Sawyer (1999) noted correlations between performance anxiety during speaking and ones level of trait communication anxiety. Because traitanxiety levels coalesce with various situational factors such as the presence of a

18

recording device, the presence of an audience and whether or not the speech will be critiqued, the level of anxiety may increase for a non-experienced speaker. According to McCroskey (1984), inexperienced speakers often create excuses to avoid uncomfortable speaking situations or allow themselves to be distracted by activities that are not as intimidating as they perceive public speaking to be. These coping mechanisms are a result of a combination of trait and situational factors, which influence public speaking apprehension. Finn, Sawyer & Schrodt, (2009) identified the most common reaction to public speaking anxiety: avoidance of speaking publicly, which can result in the limitation of a persons interaction with others and can also decrease success in overall life accomplishments. Furthermore, students who experience high levels of communication apprehension have a negative perception of the communication event (Behnke & Sawyer, 1999). Lastly, the authors concluded that students who wait until later years of their education to take the public speaking class may experience lower levels of speaking competence and higher levels of trait anxiety, which puts students at a disadvantage. Carlile, Behnke, & Kitchens (1977) identified four events that contribute to PSA: anticipation - prespeech, confrontation - the first speaking minute, adaptation - the last speaking minute, and release - the time between end of speech and one minute postspeech. According to Bodie (2010), the three systems model indicated that people react to stressful conditions like public speaking in three phases: physiological, cognitive, and behavioral. Within the physiological system, one may experience an increase in blood pressure and heart rate, sweaty palms, a difference of brain temperature and activity and salivary control. Cognitive reactions may include a delay in verbal and

19

cognitive response, cognitive processing, and speech recall. Behavioral speech anxiety (BSA) is defined as the degree of assumed speaker anxiety perceived by observers on the basis of manifest speaker behavior (Mulac & Sherman, 1975, p. 176). A speaker affected by BSA may display traits such as trembling, subconscious movements of the body, and decrease in vocal quality. BSA affects the speakers credibility and ultimate impact of the message the audience receives. Communication scholars agree that systematic desensitization (Friedrich, Goss, Cunconan & Kane, 1997), visualization (Ayres & Hopf, 1985) and skills training (Robinson, 1997) are among the most favored methods of reducing public speaking anxiety. According to Finn, Sawyer, & Schrodt (2009), there is uncertainty regarding the effect of any treatment on the trait portion of PSA; however, treatment may have an effect on reducing state anxiety. Speakers state anxiety generally decreases as the length of time the speaker is in front of the audience without negative response increases. Furthermore, instructors and scholars alike recommend the use of exposure therapy because exposure encourages decreased levels in anxiety that may be long-term. Based on the authors research, the level of public speaking anxiety is reduced within therapy and after therapy, supporting the theory that repeated exposure reduces PSA. According to Menzel & Carrell (1994), the amount of time one has to prepare for a speech affects the level of anxiety one may experience. This may be very important for the public speaking student as the student may have an already decreased level of anxiety in the college course if the student has prior public speaking experience and repeated exposure to audiences.

20

Public speaking is Americans most feared activity (Bruskin Associates, 1973; Motley, 1988; Richmond & McCroskey, 1995) and is cited as the primary reason why someone is unable to advance in ones career (Cunningham et al. 2006, p.183). Cunningham et al. also noted that people might dread public speaking because of the fear of failure or rejection by an audience upon making a mistake or simply due to conditioning, such as automatically experiencing fear whenever one is, or perceives oneself to be, in a position to be criticized or judged (p.183). Motley (1995) reported that about 85% of the population fears public speaking while Richmond and McCroskey (1989) reported that 70% of the population experiences moderately high to very high speech anxiety. Both reports indicated an alarming number of people fear a skill that is not only necessary in life but also most desired for employees entering the workforce. Communication teachers tend to believe there is a positive relationship between the time one puts into speech preparation and the performance of the speech (Menzel & Carrell, 1994) while Hayes (1978) found good speakers to have public speaking experience. Lucas (2004) and Nelson and Pearson (2005) agreed that confidence levels increase and public speaking apprehension decreases as students increase their practice and preparation time. Furthermore, people who experience high communication apprehension spend more time on written preparation of speeches and less time on rehearsal, delivery and audience analysis, in turn receiving lower grades on public speaking assignments (Pearson, Child, & Kahl, 2006). Conflicting research from Neer, Hudson & Warren (1982) stated that students who fear public speaking were also concerned with the size of the audience and length of the speech rather than preparation procedures, while Menzel & Carrell (1994) reported those who experience a high level of

21

anxiety spend more time on negative thoughts about their performance. Reisch and Ballard-Reisch (1985) stated, practice at any time, in any place will do more to bolster the self-confidence of a novice speaker than any other factor (p.13) while Fryar (1981) argued that students should practice in the most realistic environments possible. He stated, When the conditions of preparation and practice do not match the conditions of competition, practice makes perfectly awful (p.10). Fryar further argued that practice is ineffective when not supported by instruction. Chesebro et al. (1992) posited that practicing public speaking reduced anxiety due to the perception that ones skills are deficient, and development of communication skills may alter that perception and eliminate the consequent anxieties (as cited in Menzel & Carrell, 1994, p. 19). Menzel & Carrell examined the impact of preparation time, ability and public speaking experience and found that the more time one spends preparing for a speech, the better the speech performance (1994). Specifically, they found the amount of time rehearsing out loud was positively related to total score; and the time spent rehearsing for an audience was positively related to the speech delivery score (p. 23). Moreover, rehearsing with an audience prompts higher scores on delivery. Smith and Frymier (2006) found that students who performed the public speaking assignment in front of an audience received three more points on their speech grade compared to students who did not practice in front of an audience. Additionally, the larger the audience used in practice, the higher the received grade on the speech assignment. Finn et al. (2009) claimed instructors of the basic course reported a decrease in apprehension as the speaking skill of the student increased. This finding is important when considered with what Boyce et al. (2007) reported, that the confidence a student

22

gains from the experience of the public speaking class can be used in other life experiences. Additionally, most employers desire employees to have excellent oral communication skills. The authors further illustrated that when elementary school children have opportunities like show and tell, in which they learn and demonstrate oral communication skills, it is possible that they will experience lower levels of PSA, which will enable them to succeed in high school and beyond. National Standards In 1994, Congress passed Goals 2000: Educate America Act to encourage the nations schools to implement standards-based reform (Public Law 103-227). Four years later, the National Communication Association (2007) acted in response by outlining expectations of detailed communication skills in which students should become proficient. The standards emphasized group work, listening and speaking. Elementary and secondary educational environments are where students are likely to receive the most comprehensive oral communication instruction (Morreale, Cooper & Perry, 2000). Because elementary and secondary schools are likely to be the only places in which students will be receiving exposure to communication instruction, the curriculum should be complete, comprehensive and as systematic as possible (p. 9). In 2000, the National Communication Association (2007) conducted research to determine if students obtained the necessary skills to communicate effectively upon graduating from high school and secondly, if teachers in the K-12 environment were teaching the communication skills necessary to communicate effectively. Results indicated that students did not obtain the necessary skills to communicate effectively and teachers were not teaching the students necessary communication skills (Morreale et al.,

23

2000). In fact, their findings indicated a serious lack in the development of communication skills: Oral communication remains one of the most neglected of the basic skills (p.6). One quarter of our students cannot give clear, simple directions to others. In terms of more complicated tasks, even more students lack the skills necessary to communicate their feelings orally to others or to convey basic information to others (p. 5). Simonds (2002) accurately concluded, While speaking is considered to be an integral part of language arts, it tends to be neglected in the school curriculum (as cited in Boyce et. al., 2007, p.142) even though the National Council of Teachers of English endorsed oral communication (Hall et al. 1999). The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-110) placed emphasis on school performance standards and holds the schools accountable to the federal government through student and teacher outcomes. The Act (NCLB) also associated funding with students and teachers performance levels (National Communication Association, 2007). The most noted benchmarked content areas are math, the sciences and reading. The law mentioned communication skills; however, the law did not mention the skills of group interaction and listening, thus students knowledge of communication skills has not been tested. The Act did not link school outcomes to communication performance, therefore; schools have not been motivated to dedicate resources to the instruction of communication. NCLB may have detracted teachers from focusing on communication skills, because statistical evidence of student gains has been unavailable (Jennings, in press). Evidence that schools have chosen to focus time and resources on those areas to which school outcomes have been linked, at the expense of other subjects such as communication, has been documented: At least one prominent suburban

24

Chicago school lost a freshman required speech course that annually enrolled over 700 students so that the school could spend more time teaching reading (NCA, 2007, p.19). The National Communication Association (NCA) stated that because employers are seeking employees who have excellent communication skills, [t]he inability to communicate orally will have profoundly disturbing long-term consequences for our students (Morreale et al., 2000, p.5). In addition, because our society is becoming more and more culturally diverse, individuals must be far more sensitive to what we say and how we say it (p.5). According to the NCA, elementary and secondary schools do not educate students to become successful communicators, even though for many students the only opportunity for communication training is when they are in elementary and high school. Schools are failing to provide students with comprehensive instruction in the knowledge needed for the ever-changing communication process as the students move through the development continuum. The NCA encouraged leaders, both political and educational, to make communication education a national objective. (Morreale et. al., 2000). The NCA, along with the US Department of Labor, encouraged school leaders to include communication in K-12 education. The Labor Department included standard competencies needed for successful job performance including interpersonal communication skills, listening and speaking. Because humans spend 75% of each day interacting with one another via oral communication, one of the most important fundamentals of the Standards for the English Language is public speaking, according to The National Council of Teachers of English and the International Reading Association (Boyce et. al, 2007).

25

Time and time again, educators wrongly assume that children continue to develop oral communication skills after they learn to speak without any formal training (Morreale et al., 2000). The authors further stated in a report compiled by the Project on Speech Communication Competencies with the NCA: Speech communication instruction in the past has been largely absent from elementary school curricula, occurs in bits and pieces in junior high school curricula, and emerges as a single elective or required course in senior high schools. Even in school systems with more elaborate speech communication programs, the segments of the program are, more often than not, poorly articulated. The perspective taken in this chapter underscores the importance of program continuity. Children function as message strategists, for better or worse, long before they enter high school (p.6). The lack of a communication curriculum, even at the elementary level, has a profound impact on children in our society. Daly, Vangelista, Neel & Cavanaugh (1989) found that 25% of youth could not communicate at a satisfactory level. Furthermore just in terms of conveying information, they observed, 62.9% of elementary students could not give someone directions to the local grocery store so the other person could understand them (as cited in Center for Policy Research, 1990, p. v). Acquiring the competencies which will be required of individuals following high school must begin at the elementary and secondary levels and must also be consistently reinforced (Morreale et al., 2000, p.8). Efficient communication requires early training and exposure, constant and positive reinforcement. Therefore, it is imperative that communication be a major element of the humanities curriculum (Morreale et al., 2000).

26

In a manual published by the National Communication Association, communication competencies are outlined for kindergarten through 12th grade. Public speaking capabilities should develop by the time students enter ninth grade. (Morreale et al., 2000). The NCA further stated that students who receive public speaking education, giving special attention to preparation and rehearsal of language in a variety of verbal forms, exhibit gains in the actual presentation of thought, as well as in language, organization, and writing skills. By 11th grade, students should be able to demonstrate persuasion, argumentation and debate skills as crucial components of oral communication and by 12th grade, students ought to be properly exposed to the lessons of language. Seniors should understand the relationship between language and life experiences upon exiting high school. The NCA concluded with an important statement with regard to communication curricula in the elementary and secondary schools: The balance of the state departments of education currently do not require any course in oral communication (p.23). Although many high school students may not have plans to go to college, it is even more important to include speech communication in the secondary curriculum, as this would be the only instruction and opportunity they would have to understand communication concepts. When considering the two statements made by the NCA, curriculum guidelines are necessary. One myth communication scholars have continued to battle with regard to the inclusion of a communication curriculum in elementary and secondary schools is that deliberate educational intervention (Rubin & Hampton, 1998, p. 183) is not necessary for the development of oral communication skills. The new standards movement has received much attention as its purpose is to raise the bar for students, specifically to hold

27

U.S. school children to the same kinds of rigor by which we imagine students in other countries are judged (p. 184). In addition, with national standards all students are held to one standard, as opposed to students within each state being held to their state standard. According to Ravitch (1995), through the standards movement, inroads for oral communication instruction can be realized in K-12 education. Rubin and Hampton (1998) suggested the potential to affect actual classroom practices is optimized if two conditions can be satisfied: (1) oral communication standards must be incorporated into a broad-based standards project with high visibility and wide acceptance in public education. (2) The standards must not be mere abstract content objectives, but rather performance standards that are linked with specific procedures for authentic assessment. (p.183) In 2004, the American Diploma Project released benchmarks that focused on certain skills and knowledge high school graduates should possess to be successful, based on research and expertise with both employers and higher education faculty (American Diploma Project, 2010). To date, the American Diploma Project is the driving force of the current legislation on national standards, which many states are considering adopting. Communication and Teamwork is an embedded proficiency because critical thinkers and problem solvers require both content knowledge as well as competency use in the classroom, work, and the community (American Diploma Project, 2010). The oral communication benchmark for the high school graduate includes competencies such as the ability give an oral presentation that exhibits proper eye contact, nonverbal

28

characteristics, an introduction, body and conclusion bound with transitions based on sound evidence (American Diploma Project). State Standards The National Communication Association asserted that oral communication is essential for success in academics, career and personal areas of ones life (Hall et al., 1999). In any situation, the ability to understand and to be understood is a basic skill. Even an economist chose to write about the importance of the field of communication, stating: In an age of increasing talk, its wiser talk we need more (McCloskey, 1994, p.16 as cited in Hall et al. 1999, p.1). Given the importance of oral communication, it is the responsibility of the United States public educational system to create and put into operation the greatest curriculum and instructive techniques to guarantee that students accomplish communication competence. Despite the obvious importance of oral communication, local elected officials are in charge of making decisions regarding what is included in the K-12 curriculum. Jennings (in-press) further commented, Every state board of education in the United States appears to agree, as each has established student-learning standards that universally include speaking and listening expectations. Recent events, however, suggest a contradiction that challenges the teaching and assessment of communication in P-12 education. On the one hand, recent trends demonstrate that most P-12 faculty assigned to teach communication skills are not prepared to do so. On the other hand, national educational reforms such as No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, (U.S. Public Law 107-110), commonly known as NCLB, mandates that teachers must be highly

29

qualified and that proof of instructional quality must be directly linked to academic assessment. (p.149) In 1981, Book and Pappas surveyed 13 states and found only 32% required an oral communication course for graduation. In 1990, the National Communication Association conducted a similar survey and found that two states had no statewide requirements of any kind. In those two states, responsibility for curriculum development occurred at the local school board level (Hall et al., 1999, p.2). Furthermore, eight states reported not including speech or oral communication in current standards, while twentysix states reported including the oral communication standards integrated within the language arts curriculum. (Hall et al., 1992). Backlund, Brown, Gurry and Jandt (1992) found that 15 states developing curriculum to integrate into other courses reported viewing, speaking, and listening skills as imperative. In 1994, Litterst, VanRheenen & Casmir found 11 states had no statewide speaking and or listening curriculum while 21 states reported beginning the inclusion of communication in other subject areas. Furthermore, one state reported having intentions to develop such curricula while three states reported identification of such skills; however, they were still in the process of creating assessment for these skills. Finally, 14 states reported the development of curricula and assessments were underway. In a report published by the Council of Chief State School Officers in 1996, when oral communication standards are evident in the state-by-state descriptions, these standards are found in the English language arts strand. Hall et al. (1999) conducted a survey to determine not only the status but how well oral communication was implemented in K-12 education in the United States and the U.S. territories. Results of the survey indicated that

30

65% of high schools required oral communication as part of an integrated language arts curriculum, while only two states required oral communication as a separate standard or requirement. Furthermore, two percent of schools reported there was no state requirement or standard for oral communication. Lastly, only 12 states stated a requirement for exit testing for oral communication in any form. Specific to the research conducted for this dissertation, Kentucky established oral communication as a separate requirement apart from language arts while Tennessee required oral communication as part of the language arts requirement in 1998. The Kentucky Department of Education outlined academic expectations for elementary, middle, and high school so that students, teachers and administrators are informed with regard to what skills each student should possess upon advancing to the next level in education. In Kentucky, Academic Expectation 1.12 stated, Students speak using appropriate forms, conventions, and styles to communicate ideas and information to different audiences for different purposes (Kentucky Department of Education, 2007, 1). Additionally, high school students should be able to give speeches in various situations, be able to use verbal and nonverbal communication skills effectively accent the message and be able to alter their communication to fit the needs of the audience. According to the Kentucky Department of Education (2007), The English/Language Arts standards reflect what is written in Kentuckys Academic Expectations. In addition, the Department stated that oral communication skills are basic abilities which students use to communicate their thoughts. The Department also illustrated specific learning outcomes of the content standards, stating that students should realize that communication is a process that utilizes listening and speaking with

31

confidence. Furthermore, students should possess the ability to communicate thoughts and concepts effectively. This includes both nonverbal and verbal concepts to develop or emphasize meaning. The Kentucky Department of Education website outlined specific tasks students should perform for the Language Arts standard in grades 9-12. In grades 9, 10, 11 and 12, students should create oral presentations, apply delivery techniques, use visual aids to support oral communication and document ideas from outside sources using appropriate formats (1). Personal interviews with more than five P-12 educators in the state of Kentucky supported the conclusion that the teaching of communication skills is inconsistent throughout the state. J. Bonnefield, (personal communication, November 10, 2009), a teacher in North Central Kentucky noted, I am required to include public speaking skills in my language arts curriculum, while A. Binkley (personal communication, November 9, 2009) , a teacher in Western Kentucky stated, Public Speaking or oral communication is not a requirement in any of my curricula; however, I personally think it is an important skill. Furthermore, M. Medling (personal communication, December 2, 2009) noted, Oral communication skills are important; however, I have countless standards I have to meet, that are assessed with end of year testing. If no oral communication skills are being tested at the end of the year, I have no choice but not to teach them. Its all we (teachers) can do to teach the standards in which they are being tested. The English/Language Arts (ELA) standards were created to guarantee that K-12 Tennessee students study language and reading skills necessary to be successful in their lives, their jobs, and in school (Tennessee Department of Education, 2008). In addition, according to the Tennessee Department of Education, using an integrated approach

32

should be the instructional delivery system for each standard of the ELA. Courses in speech would not satisfy the graduation requirements for ELA, but may be taken as elective credit (TDOE). For example, Content Standard Speech 3015 stated, The student will develop the skills to generate ideas, research topics, organize information, and prepare for oral presentations (TDOE, 1). The stated goal of the content standard is to create effective communicators utilizing techniques such as preparing ideas in an organized fashion, speaking clearly with confidence and the ability to listen and think critically (TDOE). According to Tennessee Course Level Expectations 3001.2.6, 3002.2.6, 3003.2.6, 3004.2.6, students should deliver effective oral presentations (2008, 2). These course level expectations appear within the ELA standards in the following classes: English I, English II, English III, and English IV. One Tennessee high school English/Language Arts teacher expressed concern for teaching these expectations as she had no public speaking course in college and was given no materials to teach the oral communication skills within the English class (M. Medling, personal communication, November 10, 2009). In addition, a middle school English/Language Arts teacher expressed her concern for meeting the academic expectation as she had no previous training in oral communication and had no resources to utilize to create activities or rubrics (H. Nordstrom, personal communication, November 10, 2009). Benefit of a Speech Course Most research on classroom communication has focused on teacher behavior as opposed to student behavior. Over 1000 articles on teacher classroom behavior have been published, compared to a handful of studies focusing on student classroom behavior.

33

(Canary & MacGregor, 2008, p.41) Very little reviews have investigated how the communication behaviors of students affect the outcome of their own message, their impact on other students, or on their teachers. Canary and MacGregor found that ideal students were much more likely to act enthusiastically about the course and class topics, show intellectual stimulation and motivation, contribute to class and cooperate with the instructor, arrive ready to learn, and be inquisitive about ideas whereas, less than ideal students were more likely to act bored and sleep during class, cause classroom conflict and verbally attack other students, remain silent, resist teaching efforts, and be absent three or more times per term (p. 51). As a result, the authors suggested that these findings support the hypothesis that ideal and less than ideal students can be distinguished based on their communication within the classroom. Pearson et al. (2006) stated a student who has prior public speaking training or who was involved in a speech and debate organization will likely obtain a higher grade in the public speaking course. Students seem to become more effective communicators with training and practice. Garside (2002) commented about the importance of students learning communication skills. In order for students to be successful not only in school and work, but in life, they must possess oral communication skills. Many fields outside of communication acknowledge the significance of proficient communication skills as the society enters the information age. In many schools today, an integrated curriculum may be the only way students will receive any type of communication skills instruction. Schornack and Beck (2002)

34

stated, as the use of teams and telecommuting increases in the workplace, the requirement for both written and oral forms of communication increases. Recent research (i.e., Hobbs, 2004; Maples, 2007; Shafer, 2002, 2009) has indicated that in the majority of schools, public speaking activities have been integrated into the English/Language Arts curriculum and the exposure to communication skills is limited to few isolated activities; however, the English teacher is teaching the communication skills. Jennings (in-press) reported that two of the three top teacher training schools required education majors to have only one communication course while the third school had no communication course requirements. This information suggests that teachers who are teaching public speaking skills in the integrated curriculum have not been trained to teach public speaking; thus, students are not learning adequate communication skills. Morreale and Pearson (2008) argued that at all levels of the American educational system, there is a critical need for formalized communication education. Morreale, Osborn & Pearson (2000) collected data over a 44-year period that indicated the study of communication is vital. Four consistent themes were determined: 1) communication education is integral in the development of the whole person, 2) communication education improves the quality of classroom instruction, 3) communication education is vital to the development of skills and sensitivities that shape our social and political lives (p.225) and lastly, 4) communication education and communication skills are imperative to having a successful career and continuous improvement. In 2008, Morreale & Pearson found the four themes still applicable, however, they found two additional ones: 1) communication education is important, and 2) communication education is necessary. The authors further stated that while humans are born with the ability to

35

vocalize, they are not born with a full accoutrement of the knowledge, attitudes, and skills that constitute communication competence (p. 225). Bolt and Hagermann (2009) asked Human Resource executives to identify the top five most desired characteristics when identifying a leader. Strong communication skills was listed in the top three. Clinton (2004) reported that forestry professionals ranked public speaking as the most feared aspect of their job. In addition, DiMeglio (2009) stated possessing communication skills could set job seekers apart from their peers and ultimately, land them the job. McCloskey (1994), a professor of economics, argued that speech has become essential in our culture, thus communication is one of the most practical fields of study in academia (Morreale & Pearson, 2008). Wagner (2008) surveyed executive officers from various organizations and found that effective oral and written communication skills rated among the Seven Survival Skills that all students should master. This review of literature sought to answer the identified research questions through first examining the history of rhetoric, followed by the history of public speaking in America. Next, the history of public speaking research in America was identified along with the history of speech curriculum in high school. It should be noted that the speech course existed in the high school curriculum, then the curriculum slowly faded out of the high school curriculum and became almost non-existent in the early 2000s after the No Child Left Behind Act. Communication apprehension and public speaking anxiety were defined, followed by identifying national standards, Kentucky, and Tennessee state standards, before finally identifying the benefit of a speech course. The review of literature suggested that communication apprehension is experienced by some, however;

36

public speaking anxiety, a more specific type of communication apprehension, is experienced by an overwhelming majority of public speakers. Research from the state standards section of the literature review suggests that students are not receiving effective public speaking instruction from a teacher trained in public speaking. Finally, one who possesses competent public speaking instruction may experience benefits such as employability, personal and professional success and an enhanced quality of life. Conclusion The purpose of this research was to explore whether prior instruction or experience in public speaking in high school affected the level of public speaking anxiety in the college-level public speaking course. Substantive research (Ayres, 1996; Behnke & Sawyer, 1999; Bodie, 2010; Cunningham, Lefkoen & Sechrest, 2006; Friedrich, Goss, Cunconan & Lane, 1997; Menzel, & Carrell, 1994; McCroskey,1997; and Nelson & Pearson, 2005) was found with regard to public speaking anxiety, however; research lacks significantly with regard to public speaking curriculum in high school. This literature review suggests the more instruction, exposure and practice one has in public speaking, the more comfortable and successful one may be speaking publicly. The results of the study conducted at various colleges and universities in the states of Kentucky and Tennessee should encourage other communication scholars and researchers alike to play an active role in re-introducing the speech course in the high school curriculum.

37

CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY Introduction The purpose of this research was to investigate whether prior public speaking instruction affected the level of public speaking anxiety in a college-level public speaking course. Results of this study, conducted at various colleges and universities in the states of Kentucky and Tennessee, may encourage other communication scholars and researchers alike to play an active role in re-introducing the speech course in the high school curriculum. The study included students enrolled in an introduction to public speaking course in spring, 2011. Responses from the Rosenbergs Self-Esteem Scale and the Personal Report on Public Speaking Anxiety (see appendix A) administered to students in Spring 2011 provided information about student reported self-esteem and public speaking anxiety. It was anticipated that students who received public speaking instruction through a high school speech course or an extracurricular speech or debate organization would report lower levels of public speaking anxiety. The study focused on the following research questions: 1. Did students who had a course in public speaking during high school differ in levels of public speaking anxiety from those without high school public speaking instruction?

38

2. Did students who had extra-curricular experience in public speaking during high school differ in levels of public speaking anxiety from those who did not have extra-curricular public speaking experience? 3. Did a students self-esteem moderate the effect of a previous high school speech course on public speaking anxiety? 4. Did a students gender moderate the effect of a previous high school speech course on public speaking anxiety? The results could affect changes in secondary Language Arts curricula and policies regarding national secondary Language Arts standards. In addition, this research provided instructors with insightful information regarding their students level of public speaking anxiety. This chapter provides a description of the study conducted at five colleges and universities in Kentucky and Tennessee. Research Design This study was designed as a descriptive, non-experimental, quantitative study, which addressed the level of public speaking anxiety among students enrolled in a college-level introduction to public speaking course. Descriptive statistics are used to organize and describe the characteristics of a collection of data (Salkind 2008, p. 8). Therefore; it was most appropriate to create a descriptive study as the researchers objective was to identify and describe the effect of a public speaking course on public speaking anxiety. No treatments were introduced to the control group; therefore, it was unnecessary to conduct an experiment. The quantitative method of a survey was selected in order to collect data from a large number of participants, and to provide consistency in the data collected. It would not have been possible to interview all the participants needed

39

to adequately sample the population. Participants completed a survey, which contained demographic items and measures of students public speaking anxiety and self-esteem. Participants The population studied included a sample of 351 undergraduate students enrolled in an introductory public speaking course during the spring 2011 semester. The surveys were administered within the first two weeks of class in January, 2011 to avoid any treatment from the instructor. In order to obtain a representative sample, the entire accessible population, present for class the day the survey was administered, independently completed the two self-report instruments. Four schools were included in the study: three four-year universities and one two-year college. Originally, five schools were included in the study; however, due to inclement weather, surveys could not be administered to the second selected two-year college. The majority of respondents reported having no public speaking course in high school (73 percent, n=256) while an even larger number of respondents reported not being involved in an extracurricular public speaking activity while in high school (80 percent, n=281). Of the respondents 143 were male and 208 were female. After receiving approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at Trevecca Nazarene University in Nashville, TN, the researcher made application to the IRBs of each institution where the survey was to be administered in order to receive permission to conduct the study with students at those institutions. The institutions included a public, regional 4-year institution in Tennessee; a public, regional 4-year institution in Kentucky; a private, 4-year college in Kentucky; a private, 4-year university in Tennessee; a public 2-year community college in Tennessee; and a public 2-year community college in

40

Kentucky. The IRBs at all institutions granted permission for the researcher to conduct the study. All students received the same survey, and participation was voluntary. The researcher was compelled to withdraw the public 2-year community college in Tennessee from the study due to complications with regard to inclement weather, prohibiting the distribution of the surveys. Data Collection The survey was constructed using Rosenbergs Self-Esteem Scale (1989) and McCroskeys Personal Report of Public Speaking Anxiety (1970) (see Appendix A). Furthermore, the researcher collected demographic information including the students gender, whether or not the student had a speech course in high school or was involved in a speech and/or debate organization, and if the participant was at least 18 years of age. McCroskeys Personal Report of Public Speaking Anxiety (PRPSA) had been previously tested for reliability and validity by many researchers and scholars in the field of communication. The Cronbach's coefficient alpha of the survey was greater than .90 (McCroskey, 1970). The validity of Rosenbergs Self-Esteem scale was expressed in a Cronbachs coefficient alpha ranging from .77 to .88 (Rosenberg, 1989). To conduct the survey, the researcher travelled to four colleges and universities to administer the paper and pencil survey to the participants in the spring of 2011, with the exception of one section at a public university and one section at a private college. Weather did not permit the researcher to travel to one section of public speaking at one of the aforementioned institutions, so the instructors administered the survey. In all other instances, the researcher visited sections of the public speaking course with the instructor present. Directions were verbally given by the researcher in addition to being stated on the survey.

41

Participants in all sections of public speaking courses were informed that their participation was voluntary and their answers were anonymous. The students completed the survey in class. When students completed the survey, they were handed to the researcher or instructor and the survey was closed. Analytical Methods Next, to address the research questions, the researcher analyzed the data using The Statistical Package of Social Sciences (SPSS). An independent sample t-test was run in order to determine if students who had public speaking instruction in high school had a significantly different level of public speaking anxiety from students who did not have public speaking instruction in high school. An independent sample t-test was also run to determine if students who had extra-curricular experience in public speaking during high school had significantly different levels of public speaking anxiety from students who did not. Next, multiple regression was used to determine whether self-esteem moderated the effect of previous public speaking instruction on public speaking anxiety. Lastly, another multiple regression was used to determine whether gender moderated the effect of a previous high school speech course on public speaking anxiety.

42

43

CHAPTER IV FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Introduction The effect of the lack of a speech course in high school on public speaking anxiety in the college-level public speaking class was addressed in this study. Students first instruction in effective communication skills was the college-level public speaking course. Although speaking is an important piece of the language arts curriculum, it has been neglected. (Simonds, 2002). According to Shafer (2009), most middle and high school students lack appropriate speaking skills even though they are presenting information more frequently in todays classroom. Moreover, the students lack support from their teacher and peers; thus, public speaking is often cited as one of the top ten fears of individuals (Shafer). According to Viadero (2009), schools are not placing emphasis on communication as a content area although they believe it is important for student success. Speaking is neglected in the school curriculum although it is an important component to the language arts curriculum. (Simonds, 2002). Research has suggested that the more instruction and exposure to public speaking a student has, the lower the level of experienced public speaking anxiety. Thus, four questions drove this research: 1. Did students who had a course in public speaking during high school differ in levels of public speaking anxiety from those without high school public speaking instruction? 44

2. Did students who had extra-curricular experience in public speaking during high school differ in levels of public speaking anxiety from those who did not have extra-curricular public speaking experience? 3. Did a students self-esteem moderate the effect of a previous high school speech course on public speaking anxiety? 4. Did a students gender moderate the effect of a previous high school speech course on public speaking anxiety? Findings and Results To calculate the measure for public speaking anxiety, items 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 24, and 26 of the McCroskey Personal Report of Public Speaking Anxiety (PRPSA) Scale (see Appendix A) were recoded due to the phrasing of the question with regard to the domain being measured (1=5, 2=4, 4=2, 5=1). Then the average of the nonrecoded items and the newly recoded items was calculated. Research Question 1: Did students with instruction in public speaking during high school differ in levels of public speaking anxiety from those without high school public speaking instruction? An independent samples t-test was run in order to determine if students who had public speaking instruction in high school had a significantly different level of public speaking anxiety from students who did not have public speaking instruction in high school. The results are displayed in Table 1.

45

Table 1 Public speaking instruction and public speaking anxiety Groups With Public Speaking Course Without Public Speaking Course *p< .05 There was a significant difference in the level of anxiety of students who had a public speaking course in high school and those who have not. Those students who had a public speaking course in high school had a significantly lower level of public speaking anxiety than students who did not. Research Question 2: Did students who had extra-curricular experience in public speaking during high school differ in levels of public speaking anxiety from those who did not have extra-curricular public speaking experience? An independent samples t-test was run in order to determine if students who had extra-curricular experience in public speaking during high school had significantly different levels of public speaking anxiety from students who did not. The results are displayed in Table 2. Table 2 Extracurricular public speaking experience and public speaking anxiety Groups With Extracurricular Experience Without Extracurricular Experience *p< .001 N 67 285 Mean Anxiety Score 2.67 3.24 SD .799 .852 t 4.99 p .000* N 95 257 Mean Anxiety Score 2.97 3.20 SD .866 .865 t 2.23 p .026*

There was a significant difference in the level of anxiety of students who were involved in an extra-curricular public speaking experience in high school and those who were not. 46

Those students who had the extra-curricular public speaking experience in high school had a significantly lower level of public speaking anxiety than students who did not. Research Question 3: Did self-esteem moderate the effect of a previous speech course on public speaking anxiety? After organizing the data systematically, prior to tabulation, the researcher analyzed questionnaire responses. Items reversed in valence were coded to represent consistent scoring. Additionally, Cronbachs alpha was utilized to determine internal consistency of item results. In order to obtain a Cronbachs alpha greater than .80, item R2 in Rosenbergs (1989) Self-Esteem Scale (see Appendix A) was excluded to increase reliability during statistical analysis. Multiple regression was used to determine whether self-esteem moderated the effect of previous public speaking instruction on public speaking anxiety. Items 3,5,8,9, and 10 in the Rosenbergs Self Esteem Scale were recoded due to the phrasing of the question with regard to the domain being measured (1=5, 2=4, 4=2, 5=1). Then the average of the non-recoded items and the newly recoded items was calculated. Additionally, the scoring was manipulated to a likert-scale to remain consistent with the PRPSA Scale. (See Table 3)

47

Table 3 Public speaking instruction and self esteem Variable Constant High School Public Speaking Instruction Self-Esteem Product: Instruction x Self-Esteem p< .001 B 150.99 11.53 SE B 9.08 18.39 .18 t p

-1.16 -.56

.24 .50

-.276 -.32 -1.12 .27

The findings were not significant. Self-esteem did not moderate the effect of a previous high school public speaking course on public speaking anxiety. Research Question 4: Did a students gender moderate the effect of a previous speech course on anxiety? To calculate the measure of public speaking anxiety, items 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 24, and 26 of McCroskeys PRPSA were recoded due to the phrasing of the question with regard to the domain being measured (1=5, 2=4, 4=2, 5=1). Then the average of the non-recoded items and the newly recoded items was calculated. Multiple regression was used to determine whether gender moderated the effect of a previous high school speech course on public speaking anxiety. The results are reported in Table 4.

48

Table 4 Gender and public speaking anxiety Variable Constant Course Sex Product: Course x Sex p < .001 B 103.76 -6.73 8.72 -3.36 SE B 2.62 5.83 3.53 7.17 -.12 .15 -.05 -.47 .64 t p

The findings were not significant; a students gender did not moderate the effect of a previous high school speech course on public speaking anxiety. Summary of Findings Significant differences were identified between the groups who were enrolled in a public speaking course in high school and those who were not, regarding public speaking anxiety. Those who were enrolled in the high school public speaking course had significantly lower anxiety than those who did not have a high school public speaking course. Additionally, students who had the extra-curricular public speaking experience in high school had a significantly lower level of public speaking anxiety in the college-level introductory public speaking course than students who did not. Furthermore, neither selfesteem nor a students gender moderated the effect of a previous high school speech course on public speaking anxiety. Limitations Only one community college was included in this study, resulting in a limitation regarding respondents from this demographic group. This study is limited to schools in the Southeast; therefore, cultural influences may affect the outcome. While public,

49

private, two-year and four-year institutions were surveyed, only mid-size and small institutions were included in the study. The two professors who administered the survey in the absence of the researcher may have been inconsistent with directions, even though exact instructions for administering the survey were provided by the researcher. Implications and Recommendations Public speaking instruction prior to the college-level introductory public speaking course affected the level of perceived public speaking anxiety. Variables such as gender and self-esteem, however, did not moderate the effect of public speaking instruction or experience with regard to perceived public speaking anxiety. Substantive research (Ayres, 1996; Ayres & Hopf, 1985; Beatty, McCroskey & Heisel 1998; Behnke & Sawyer, 1999, 2001; Bodie, 2010; Boyce, Alber-Morgan, & Riley, 2007; Bruskin Associates, 1973; Carlile, Behnke, & Kitchens, 1977; Chesebro, McCroskey, Atwater, Bahrenfuss, Cawleti, & Gaudino, 1992; Cicero, 1876; Clevenger, 1984; Cunningham, Lefkoe, & Sechrest, 2006; Daly, Bangelista, Neel, & Cavanaugh, 1989; Finn, Sawyer, & Schrodt, 2009; Friedrich, Goss, Cunconan, & Lane, 1997; Hayes & Marshall, 1984; Henrickson, 1943; Leppington, 2005; McCroskey, 1970, 1976, 1978, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1997a, 1997b; Menzel & Carrell, 1994; Miller & Nadler, 2009; Motley, 1995; Mulac & Sherman, 1975; Neer, Hudson, & Warren, 1982; Richmond & McCroskey, 1989, 1995; Robinson, 1997; Simmonds, 2002; Spielberger, 1966; Young, Behnke, & Mann, 2004) was found in the literature review with regard to public speaking anxiety; however, there are significant gaps in the research with regard to public speaking curriculum in high school. Therefore, this study was the first of its kind. Additionally, this study linked the effect of that instruction to perceived public speaking anxiety. As noted in the literature

50

review and in this study, most students have their first encounter with public speaking instruction at the college level, as many higher education institutions require the course to fulfill a general education requirement. According to this study, only 27% of students are exposed to public speaking instruction in high school either through a one-semester course or through the integration of communication concepts in the English Language Arts curriculum, which is taught by an English or Language Arts teacher who many times has little or no training in teaching public speaking. This lack of instruction can be detrimental to the professional success of an individual given that organizations clearly seek employees who possess competent oral communication skills. Research (Becker & Eckdom, 1980; Boyce, Alber-Morgan et al., 2007; Emanuel, 2005; Harrell & Harrell 1984; Miller & Nadler, 2009; Morreale et al., 2000; National Communication Association, 2007; Snyder, 1999) has indicated that the study of oral communications is justified and is vital to personal and professional success. Students who experience high levels of PSA are likely to suffer negative life consequences, while students experiencing low levels of PSA are likely to experience positive life consequences (Morreale). Furthermore, research has suggested there is a correlation between higher levels of communication apprehension and lower GPAs, higher dropout rate, and the lack of coping skills to transition from childhood to adulthood. (Miller & Nadler, 2009). While studies (Hall et al.,1992; Jennings, 2010; Kentucky Department of Education, 2007; Litterst, et al., 2004; Morreale et al., 2000; National Communication Association, 2000; Simonds, 2002; Morreale et al., 2000) in this field suggest there is a positive relationship between preparation time, practice and the demonstration of public

51

speaking, K-12 institutions are not including oral communications in current instructional standards. Additionally, confidence levels increase and public speaking apprehension decreases as students increase their practice and preparation time. Both research and this study have suggested that if students were to have public speaking instruction in the K-12 environment, levels of PSA would decrease not only in the college-level introductory public speaking course, but in the event of public speaking. It is clear that communication instruction is a pressing need at the K-12 level of the United States educational system. Data suggested students who had a high school public speaking course experienced less public speaking anxiety in the college-level public speaking course. This finding has suggested that high schools would do well to provide their students with a public speaking course, as simply taking one college-level public speaking course without previous instruction impairs a students ability to perform well. Students who do not advance from high school to college but enter the workforce directly also need oral communication skills and would receive great benefit from a public speaking course in high school. The researcher did not discover any previous studies that surveyed students regarding their public speaking anxiety. Clearly, further research is needed. One would assume students would be more successful in the public speaking course as well as more successful in their careers if they had a public speaking course in high school, although this study did not test for this outcome. Based on the literature review, there may be a very small number of students who have had a speech class in high school. Recommendations for replication of this study are two-fold. For further research, the researcher suggests expanding the demographic scope of the study, as well as

52

broadening the sample to include larger institutions. Additionally, it is suggested that the research survey include an item asking respondents to report the length of time that has passed between the time of the high school public speaking class and the college public speaking class in order to generalize the findings. It is important to recognize not all high school graduates attend college; therefore, the only public speaking instruction these students would receive would be the high school public speaking course. This study explored the possible relationship between previous instruction or experience in public speaking and public speaking anxiety. This study was the first of its kind, and suggested students who had a public speaking course in high school entered the college public speaking course with less anxiety. The literature review and the results of this study suggested the more instruction, exposure and practice one has had in public speaking, the more comfortable and successful one may be speaking publicly. The results of the study conducted at various colleges and universities in the states of Kentucky and Tennessee should encourage other communication scholars and researchers alike to play an active role in re-introducing the speech course in the high school curriculum.

53

REFERENCES American Diploma Project. (n.d.). Retrieved September 15, 2009 from http://www.achieve.org/node/176. Ayres, J. (1996). Speech preparation processes and speech apprehension. Communication Education, 45, 228-235. Ayres, J., & Hopf, T. S. (1985). Visualization: A means of reducing speech anxiety. Communication Education, 34, 318-323. Backlund, P., Brown, K. L., Gurry, J., & Jandt, F. (1992). Recommendations for assessing speaking and listening skills. Communication Education, 31, 9-17. Bassett, R. E., Whittington, N., & Staton-Spicer, A. (1978). The basics of speaking and listening for high school graduates: What should be assessed? Communication Education, 27, 293-303. Beatty, M. J., McCroskey, J. C. & Heisel, A. D. (1998). Communication apprehension as temperamental expression: A communibiological paradigm. Communication Monographs, 65, 197-219. Beatty, M. J., McCroskey, J. C., & Valencic, K. M. (2001). The biology of communication: A communibiological perspective. Creskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Becker, S. & Ekdom, L. R. V. (1980). That forgotten basic skill: Oral communication. Iowa Journal of Speech Communication, 12, 1-18.

54

Behnke, R. R. & Sawyer, C. R. (1999). Public speaking procrastination as a correlate of public speaking communication apprehension and self-perceived public speaking competence. Communication Research Reports, 16(1), 40-47. Behnke, R. R., & Sawyer, C. T. (2001). Patterns of psychological state anxiety in public speaking as a function of anxiety sensitivity. Communication Quarterly, 49, 8594. Bodie, G. D. (2008). Student as communication skills trainer: From research to concept keys. Communication Teacher, 22(2), 51-55. Bodie, G. D. (2010). A racing heart, rattling knees, and ruminative thoughts: Defining, explaining and treating public speaking anxiety. Communication Education, 59(1), 70-105. Bolt, J. F. & Hagemann, B. (2009). Future leaders: Identify and develop them. Leadership Excellence, 10, 11. Book, C. L., & Pappas, E. (1981). The status of speech communication in secondary schools in the United States: An update. Communication Education, 30, 199-208. Boyce, J. S., Alber-Morgan, S. R. & Riley, J. G. (2007). Fearless public speaking: Oral presentation activities for the elementary classroom. Childhood Education, 1,142150. Bracey, G. (1996). International comparisons and the condition of American education. Education Researcher, 25(1), 5-11. Brooks, W. D. (1969). The status of speech in secondary schools a summary of state studies. The Speech Teacher, 18(4), 276-282. Bruskin Associates, (1973). What are Americans afraid of? The Bruskin Report, 53, 27.

55

Buys, W. E., Carlson, C. V., Compton, H. & Frank, A. D. (1968). Speech communication in the high school curriculum. The Speech Teacher, 17(4), 297-318. Canary, D. J. & MacGregor, I. M. (2008). Differences that make a difference in assessing student communication competence. Communication Education, 57(1), 41-63. Carlile, L. W., Behnke, R. R., & Kitchens, J. T. (1977). A psychological pattern of anxiety in public speaking. Communication Quarterly, 25(4), 44-46. Center for Policy Research, National Governors Association. (1990). State Actions to Restructure Schools: First Step Washington, DC: National Governors Association. Chesebro, J. W., & Gaudino, J. L. (1991, February). Legal status of oral communication in the U.S. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Western Communication Association, Phoenix, AZ. Chesebro, J. W., McCroskey, J. C., Atwater, D. F., Bahrenfuss, R. M., Cawleti, G., & Gaudino, J. L. (1992). Communication apprehension and self-perceived communication competence of at-risk students. Communication Education, 41, 345-360. Cicero, M. (1876). In J. S. Watson (Trans). De oratory. London: George Bell and Sons. Cicero, M. (1942). De Oratore, (E.W. Sutton, Trans). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Clevenger, T. (1984). Analysis of research on the social anxieties. In J.A. Daly & J.C. McCroskey (Eds.), Avoiding communication: Shyness, reticence, and communication apprehension (1st ed.), (pp.219-236). Beverly Hills: Sage.

56

Clinton, K. (2004). Public speaking forestry professionals. Journal of Forestry, 1(1), 102108. Council of Chief State School Officers. (1996). States status on standards: 1996 update. Washington, DC: Author. Corbett, E. P. J. (1990). Classical rhetoric for the modern student. New York: Oxford University Press. Craig, R. (1989). Communication as a practical discipline. In B. Dervin, I. Grossberg, B.J. OKeefe, & E. Wartella (Eds.), Rethinking communication: Volume 1: Paradigm issues, (pp.97-122). Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE. Cunningham, V., Lefkoe, M. & Sechrest, L. (2006). Eliminating fears: An intervention that permanently eliminates the fear of public speaking. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 13, 183-193. Daly, J. A., Vangelista, A. L., Neel, H. L., & Cavanaugh, P. D. (1989). Pre-performance concerns associated with public speaking anxiety. Communication Quarterly, 37, 39-53. Dannels, D. P. & Housley Gaffney, A. L. (2009). Communication across the curriculum and in the disciplines: A call for scholarly cross-curricular advocacy. Communication Education, 58(1), 124-153. Darling, A. L., & Dannels, D. P. (2003). Practicing engineers talk about the importance of talk: A report on the role of oral communication in the workplace. Communication Education, 52(1), 17-29. Dieckhoff, R. (1937). An integrated course in public speaking. The Quarterly Journal of Speech, 23, 468-473.

57

Di Meglio, F. (2009). In a competitive job market, courses that build communication skills, decision-making process, and confidence may be the ticket to gainful employment. Business Week Online. Retrieved November 5, 2010 from www.businessweek.com/bschools.content/jl2009/js2000972_669774.htm. Emanuel, R. (2005). The case for fundamentals of oral communication. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 29, 153-162. Felder, R. M., Woods, D. R., Stice, J. E., & Rugarcia, A. (2000). The future of engineering education II: Teaching methods that work. Chemical Engineering Education, 34(1), 26-39. Finn, A. N., Sawyer, C. R., & Schrodt, P. (2009). Examining the effect of exposure therapy on public speaking state anxiety. Communication Education, 58(1), 92109. Friedrich, G. W. (2002). The communication education research agenda. Communication Education, 51(4), 372-375. Friedrich, G., Goss, B., Cunconan, T., & Lane, D. (1997). Systematic desensitization. In J.A. Daly, J. McCroskey, J. Ayres, T. Hopf, & D.M. Ayres (Eds.), Avoiding communication: Shyness, reticence, and communication apprehension (2nd ed.), pp. 305-330). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton. Fryar, M. (1981, September). Coaching for individual events. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Speech Communication Association, Austin, TX. Garside, C. (2002). Seeing the forest through the trees: A challenge facing communication across the curriculum programs. Communication Education, 51(1), 51-64.

58

Goals 2000: Educate America Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 102-227, Stat. 1804 (1994). Hall, B. I., Morreale, S. P. & Gaudino, J. L. (1999). A survey of the status of oral communication in the k-12 public educational system in the United States. Communication Education, 48, 139-148. Hanson, T. L. (2008). Teaching speech in Texas: The challenges and rewards of teaching speech communication in Texas public schools. Texas Speech Communication Journal, 33(1), 74-77. Harrell, T. W., & Harrell, M. S. (1984). Stanford MBA careers: A 20-year longitudinal study. (Research Paper, No. 723) Stanford, CA: Stanford Graduate School of Business. Hayes, B. J., & Marshall, W. L. (1984). Generalization of treatment effects in training public speakers. Behavior Research & Therapy, 22, 519-533. Hayes, D. T. (1978). Nonintellective predictors of public speaking ability and academic success in a basic college-level speech communication course (Doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri, 1977). Dissertation Abstracts International, 28, 5795A. Hefferin, D. (1997). Public Speaking: Where have we been and where are we going? The Florida Communication Journal, 26(2), 73-77. Henrikson, E. H. (1943). Some effects on stage fright of a course in speech. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 29, 490-491. Hobbs, R. (2004). Media literacy, general semantics, and K-12 education. ETC, 1, 24-29.

59

Jennings, D. K. (in-press). A Communication assessment primer: Assessing communication in P-12 classrooms, (p.150-168). National Communication Association, Washington, DC. Jennings, D., Long, L., Nollinger, K., & Sank, L. (2006, April). Meeting the needs of No Child Left Behind through secondary speech courses and standardized assessments: National research results. Paper presented at the meeting of the Central States Communication Association, Indianapolis. Kentucky Department of Education. (n.d.) Instructional resources and curriculum. Retrieved October 2009 from http://www.education.ky.gov/KDE/Instructional+ Resources/Curriculum+Documents+and+Resources/Academic+Expectations/. Knower, F. H. (1938). A study of speech attitudes and adjustment. Speech Monographs, 5, 130-203. Kysilka, M. L. (1998). Understanding integrated curriculum. Curriculum Journal, 9(2), 197-210. Lamb, B. (1998). Coming to terms. English Journal, 87(1), 108-109. Leppington, R, & Feind, R. (2005). Overcoming speech and library anxiety. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 9(3), 321-326. Litterst, J. K., VanRheenen, D. D., & Casmir, M. H. (1994). Practices in statewide oral communication assessment, 1981-1994. In S.P. Morreale (Ed.), NCA 1994 summer conference on assessing college student oral competence (pp. 187-215). Annandale, VA: NCA. Lucas, S. E. (2004). The art of public speaking. (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill

60

Maples, J. (2007). English class at the improv: Using improvisation to teach middle school students confidence, community, and content. The Clearing House, 80(6), 273-277. Martens, E. A. (2007). The instructional use of argument across the curriculum. Middle School Journal. 38(5), 4-13. McCloskey, D. (1994). The neglected economics of talk. Planning for Higher Education, 22, 11-16. McCroskey, J. C. (1970). Measures of communication-bound anxiety. Speech Monographs, 37, 269-277. McCroskey, J. C. (1978). Validity of the PRCA as an index of oral communication apprehension. Communication Monographs, 45, 193-203. McCroskey, J. C. (1982). Oral communication apprehension: A reconceptualization. In M. Burgoon (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 6 (pp. 136-170). Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE. McCroskey, J. C. (1983). How to make a good thing worse: A comparison of approaches to helping students overcome communication apprehension. Communication Education, Special Edition, 12(1), 213-221. McCroskey, J. C. (1984). The communication apprehension perspective. In J. A. Daly, J. C. McCroskey, (Eds.), Avoiding communication: Shyness, reticence, and communication apprehension (1st ed.), (pp. 1-38). Beverly Hills: CA, SAGE McCroskey, J. C. (1997a). Self-report measurement. In J.A. Daly, J.C. McCroskey, J. Ayres, T. Hopf, & D.M. Ayres (Eds.), Avoiding communication: Shyness,

61

reticence, and communication apprehension (2nd ed.), (pp. 191-216). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. McCroskey, J. C. (1997b). Willingness to communicate, communication apprehension and communication apprehension and self-perceived communication competence: Conceptualizations and perspectives. In J.A. Daly, J.C. McCroskey, J. Ayres, T. Hopf, & D. M. Ayres (Eds), Avoiding communication: Shyness, reticence, and communication apprehension (2nd ed.), (pp. 75-108). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton. McCroskey, J. C., Daly, J. A., & Sorensen, G. A. (1976). Personality correlates of communication apprehension: A research note. Human Communication Research, 2, 376-380. Menzel, K. E. & Carrell, L. J. (1994). The relationship between preparation and performance in public speaking. Communication Education, 43, 17-26. Miller, M. T. & Nadler, D. P. (2009). Communication apprehension levels of student governance leaders. Online Submission. ERIC Morreale, S. P. & Backlund, P. M. (2002). Communication curricula: History, recommendations, resources. Communication Education, 51(1), 2-18. Morreale, S. P., Cooper, P., & Perry, C. (2000). Guidelines for developing oral communication curricula in kindergarten through twelfth grade. National Communication Association, 2(1), 2-28. Morreale, S. P., Hanna, M. S., Berko, R. M., & Gibson, J. W. (1999). The basic communication course at U.S. colleges and universities: VI. Basic Communication Course Annual, 11, 1-36.

62

Morreale, S. P., Osborn, M. M., & Pearson, J. C. (2000). Why communication education is important: A rationale for the centrality of the study of communication. Journal of the Association for Communication Administration, 29, 1-25.

Morreale, S. P. & Pearson, J. C. (2008). Why communication education is important: The centrality of the discipline in the 21st century. Communication Education 57(2), 224-240. Mosvick, R. K. & Nelson, R. B. (1996). Weve got to start meeting like this: A guide to successful meeting management. Indianapolis, IN: Park Avenue. Motley, M. T. (1988). Taking the terror out of talk: Thinking in terms of communication rather than performance helps us calm our biggest fear. Psychology Today, 22(1), 46-49. Motley, M. T. (1995). Overcoming your fear of public speaking: A proven method. New York: McGraw-Hill. Mulac, A., & Sherman, A. R. (1975). Conceptual foundations of the behavioral assessment of speech anxiety. Western Journal of Communication, 39, 176-180. National Council of Teachers of English & International Reading Association. (1996). Standards for the English language arts. Retrieved November, 2010 from http://www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Resources/Books/TofC/46767Contents.p df. National Communication Association. (1998). Competent communicators: K-12 speaking, listening, and media literacy standards and competency statements. Annandale, VA: Author.

63

National Communication Association. (2007). Part II: Oral communication assessment instruments for P-12. Large scale assessment of oral communication P-12 or higher education. 17-47. https://www.natcom.org/nationalconvention.reports. Neer, M. R., Hudson, D. E., & Warren, C. (1982, November). Instructional methods for managing speech anxiety in the classroom. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Louisville, KY. Nelson, P. E., & Pearson, J. C. (2005). Confidence in public speaking (8th ed.). Los Angeles: Roxbury Publishing Company. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001: Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2001). Nyquist, J. L. (1982). The status of speech communication in Washington secondary schools. Communicator, 12, 81-95. Ogilvie, M. (1969). The status of speech in secondary schools: a symposium. The Speech Teacher, 18(1), 39-45. Oliver, R. T. (1965). The influence of public speaking in American history: building block in a free society. New York, NY: Annual convention of Toastmasters International. Pearson, J. C., Child, J. T., & Kahl, D. H. Jr. (2006). Preparation meeting opportunity: How do college students prepare for public speeches? Communication Quarterly, 54(3), 351-366. Phillips, G. C. (1991). Communication incompetencies: A theory of training oral performance behavior. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

64

Quintanilla, K. & Mallard, J. (2008). Understanding the role of communication bravado: an important issue for trainers/educators. Texas Speech Communication Journal, 30(1), 44-49. Ravitch, D. (1995). National standards in American education. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institute. Reisch, R. J., & Ballard-Reisch, D. S. (1985, September). Coaching strategies in contest persuasive speaking: A guide to coaching the novice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Denver, CO. Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (1989), Communication: Apprehension, avoidance, and effectiveness. Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch. Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (1995), Communication: Apprehension, avoidance, and effectiveness (4th ed.). Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch Scarisbrick. Robinson, K.F. (1952). Certification of secondary school teachers of speech. The Speech Teacher, 1(1), 24-29. Robinson, T. E. (1997). Communication apprehension and the basic public speaking course: A national survey of in-class treatment techniques. Communication Education, 46, 188-197. Rosenberg, M. (1989). Society and the Adolescent Self-Image. Revised edition. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press. Rothwell, J. D. (2004). In the company of others: An introduction to communication. Boston: McGraw-Hill.

65

Rubin, D. L. & Hampton, S. (1998). National performance standards for oral communication K-12: New standards and speaking/listening/viewing. Communication Education, 47, 183-193. Satir, V. (1998). Peoplemaking (2nd ed.). Los Altos, CA: Science & Behavior Books. Schornack, R. G. & Beck, C. E. (2002). Student public speaking-creating the confidence breaking through barriers. Denver: Guides-Non-Classroom. Secretarys Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (1991). What work requires of schools. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor. Shafer, G. (2002). Tell me a story. English Journal, 92(2), 102-106. Shafer, S. (2009). Promoting communications skills in the classroom. Educational Digest, 1(1)48-49. Simonds, T. (2002). Speaking in public shouldnt be anyones greatest fear. Presentations, 16, 6. Smith, T. E. & Frymier, A. B. (2006). Get real: does practicing speeches before an audience improve performance? Communication Quarterly, 54(1), 111-125. Snyder, K. (1999). Build your students speaking power: A teachers manual for the leaders of tomorrow speech program. Clearinghouse on Reading, English and Communication, Bloomington, IN: ERIC Spielberger, C. D. (1966). Anxiety and behavior. New York: Academic. Strickland, D., & Feeley, J. T. (1991). Development in the elementary years. In J. Squires (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching English language arts (286-302). New York: Macmillian.

66

Tennessee Department of Education. (n.d.). English. Retrieved September, 2010 from http://www.tennessee.gov/education/ci/english/index.shtml. Viadero, D. (2009). Researchers try to promote students' ability to argue; a littledeveloped skill gets fresh recognition as essential for school, life. Education Week, 29(3), 14. Villarreal, J. J. (1938). Speech purpose in public speaking. The Quarterly Journal of Speech, 24(4), 589-597. Wagner, T. (2008). Teaching and testing the skills that matter most. Education Week, 28(12). Walton, D. (1989). Are you communicating? You cant manage without it. New York: McGraw-Hill. Winsor, J. L., Curtis, D. B., & Stephens, R. D. (1997). National preferences in business and communication education: A survey update. Journal of the Association of Communication Administration, 3, 170-179. Witkin, B. R., Lovern, M. L., & Lundsteen, S. W. (1996). Oral communication in the language arts curriculum: A national perspective. Communication Education, 45, 40-58. Young, M. J., Behnke, R. R., & Mann, Y. L. (2004). Anxiety patterns in employment interviews. Communication Reports, 17, 49-57.

67

Appendix A Survey

68

69

_______ I am 18 years of age or older. You may use my responses in your research. _______ I am less than 18 years of age. Do not use my responses in your research. _______ I had a speech course in high school. _______ I was involved in a speech and/or debate organization in high school. _______ I am a male. _______ I am a female. Rosenbergs Self-Esteem Scale Directions: Below are 10 statements dealing with general feelings about yourself. Please indicate whether or not you believe each statement applies to you by marking whether you: Strongly Disagree = 1; Disagree = 2; Neutral = 3; Agree = 4; Strongly Agree = 5 _______ 1. I feel that I'm a person of worth, at least on an equal plane with others. _______ 2. I feel that I have a number of good qualities. _______ 3. All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure. _______ 4. I am able to do things as well as most other people. _______ 5. I feel I do not have much to be proud of. _______ 6. I take a positive attitude toward myself. _______ 7. On the whole, I am satisfied with myself. _______ 8. I wish I could have more respect for myself. _______ 9. I certainly feel useless at times. _______ 10. At times I think I am no good at all. Rosenberg, M. (1989). Society and the Adolescent Self-Image. Revised edition. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press. *Please turn over to continue* Personal Report of Public Speaking Anxiety (PRPSA) Directions: Below are 34 statements that people sometimes make about themselves. Please indicate whether or not you believe each statement applies to you by marking whether you: Strongly Disagree = 1; Disagree = 2; Neutral = 3; Agree = 4; Strongly Agree = 5. _____1. While preparing for giving a speech, I feel tense and nervous. _____2. I feel tense when I see the words speech and public speech on a course outline when studying. _____3. My thoughts become confused and jumbled when I am giving a speech. _____4. Right after giving a speech I feel that I have had a pleasant experience. _____5. I get anxious when I think about a speech coming up. _____6. I have no fear of giving a speech. _____7. Although I am nervous just before starting a speech, I soon settle down after starting and feel calm and comfortable. _____8. I look forward to giving a speech. _____9. When the instructor announces a speaking assignment in class, I can feel myself getting tense. _____10. My hands tremble when I am giving a speech. _____11. I feel relaxed while giving a speech. 70

_____12. I enjoy preparing for a speech. _____13. I am in constant fear of forgetting what I prepared to say. _____14. I get anxious if someone asks me something about my topic that I dont know. _____15. I face the prospect of giving a speech with confidence. _____16. I feel that I am in complete possession of myself while giving a speech. _____17. My mind is clear when giving a speech. _____18. I do not dread giving a speech. _____19. I perspire just before starting a speech. _____20. My heart beats very fast just as I start a speech. _____21. I experience considerable anxiety while sitting in the room just before my speech starts. _____22. Certain parts of my body feel very tense and rigid while giving a speech. _____23. Realizing that only a little time remains in a speech makes me very tense and anxious. _____24. While giving a speech, I know I can control my feelings of tension and stress. _____25. I breathe faster just before starting a speech. _____26. I feel comfortable and relaxed in the hour or so just before giving a speech. _____27. I do poorer on speeches because I am anxious. _____28. I feel anxious when the teacher announces the date of a speaking assignment. _____29. When I make a mistake while giving a speech, I find it hard to concentrate on the parts that follow. _____30. During an important speech I experience a feeling of helplessness building up inside me. _____31. I have trouble falling asleep the night before a speech. _____32.My heart beats very fast while I present a speech. _____33. I feel anxious while waiting to give my speech. _____34. While giving a speech, I get so nervous I forget facts I really know. McCroskey, J. C. (1970) . Measures of communication-bound anxiety. Speech Monographs, 37, 269-277.

71

Appendix B IRB Approvals

72

73

74

75

76

1/14/11 Hi Billy and Karen, I would love to have the students take this survey. Yes, my class is on Tues/Thurs at 9. Please let me know more details Hope you both had a great holiday! Velicia Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

77